Standing Committee A

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Railways Bill

Clause 22 - Proposal by service operator to discontinue non-franchised services

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: Part 4 of the Bill contains 22 clauses—of which this is the first—all dealing with rail closures. This part of the Bill has caused widespread concern in numerous organisations from many parts of the country, and such concerns have been expressed to me and probably to other Committee members.
The clauses about closures refer not to the lines but the passenger services on them, and nothing is said about what happens to the lines after a closure has taken place. If a rail route carries freight, or might do so in the future, surely Network Rail should keep the line open. Perhaps it should be maintained for a period to see whether other operators wish to operate passenger services on it. How does the Minister envisage the lines being dealt with? 
I do not know whether the Society for the Blind has written to other Committee members, but it has expressed concerns to me about the closure process in the clause and in schedule 7. It feels that when a closure is mooted there should be a requirement to place an advert in a publication called Soundings—a national talking newspaper—so that those rail users who cannot read a normal newspaper will be made aware of what is proposed. What is the Minister's response to that? It would be only fair if the Secretary of State were to designate disability organisations as bodies representing the interests of railway passengers in this part of the Bill. 
What has added to the concern outside the House is the fact that, although there are 22 clauses dealing with closures, the Government have not shown that they want to encourage the opening of new rail routes. I received a communication from the Minster rail group, which is based in Yorkshire, and some of its members live in my constituency. It is campaigning to reopen a rail line from Beverley to York, and it has managed to secure funding from the Countryside Agency and support from one of the local authorities in the area to carry out a feasibility study on whether it would be profitable for the line to reopen. 
One of the main campaigners has written to me concerning this part of the Bill, and I shall share with the Committee some of what he has to say. He writes:
 ''But the biggest worry, and the biggest single section of the bill (over a third of the clauses) is concerned with ''streamlining'' the procedures for rail closures. 
 This is odd since . . . earlier both the Minister and the Secretary of State were launching the . . . Community Rail report and . . . denying media reports that closures were on the agenda.'' 
He asks why they want to speed up closure procedures now, which is a fair question. He continues: 
 ''What is all the more alarming is that the Bill makes no mention of public hearings or hardship. Indeed there is little about consultation with users, and then only through bodies recognised by the Secretary of State! It is not clear which bodies these would be. Rail users could be effectively ignored.'' 
He adds: 
 ''All this sends out exactly the wrong message.'' 
I would welcome the Minister's response to those concerns. There may be reasons, which I hope he will explain, why he believes that all those clauses are appropriate. As there are 22 clauses dealing with pretty much the same issue, I hope that you, Mr. Griffiths, will allow him on this clause to explain his overall agenda in this area. We look forward to hearing what he has to say.

John Thurso: As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said, we now come to 22 clauses in part 4, all of which relate to changes and amendments to the closure period. I hope that you, Mr. Griffiths, will allow a little leeway from the Chair, as a general debate on the principle of closures may avoid the need for debate later. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to respond fully to the wider question. Individual clauses may have some merit, but, taken together, the effect of 22 clauses that change the way in which closures can be made—all of them making closures easier—is to give the impression that there is an agenda for closure, which may or may not be the Government's intention.
At present, the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers are under a general duty to ensure the continued operation of services, networks or stations, but there was a revealing paragraph in the White Paper ''The Future of Rail''. Paragraph 5.3.6 states: 
 ''Currently much of the involvement of local and regional stakeholders is focused on planning enhancements, rather than on the Government's priorities of improving performance and cost control.'' 
Of course, improving performance does not necessarily mean improving service. There is a distinction between the two. There may be a wide range of trains providing a comprehensive service, but the performance of those trains may leave something to be desired. Furthermore, their performance could be improved by removing some trains. If there is only one train that runs on time, there is a very high level of performance but not necessarily a high level of service. It is possible that removing trains, as the Strategic Rail Authority has proposed in some instances in order to improve service, could result in a deterioration in the overall service while improving the performance of some trains. 
The other issue is cost control. It is important that we understand the real costs that are involved. One of the criticisms that was made of Dr. Beeching when he  imposed his cuts in the '60s was that a general level of cost per mile of railway track was used to calculate savings, which were based on the number of miles closed. It was assumed that savings could be calculated on the average cost of running a mile of railway, but that has proved to be false. Many smaller lines do not bear the cost that is attributed to them by using an average cost. In fact, when a line is closed, far less saving is achieved than was expected at the beginning, as the fixed cost of running more remote rural railways is actually far less than that of running more frequently used higher-speed services. 
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain to the Committee why it is necessary to make so many amendments, given that we have a closure procedure with which no one seems too unhappy and which appears to have worked, and if, as has been claimed, there is no overall agenda for closing some of the smaller railways. I, too, have received considerable correspondence from a wide range of organisations that have expressed concern, and, furthermore, wish to enhance the railways by reopening lines that were closed in the '60s and by linking up areas that were not linked up before. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain the Government's thinking in detail.

Christopher Chope: I, too, would like to ask the Minister some questions, beginning with one about the proposed guidance. The whole clause is based on guidance, but we have not seen that in draft format or otherwise, and it seems that we are being asked to approve it in the dark. I should be grateful if the Minister could state when the draft guidance will be published, because when we see it we will have a better idea about whether the Government can be trusted, or whether this programme is, as most people fear, a secret agenda to close down a significant part of the railway network.
Subsection (5) states: 
 ''Before giving the notice under subsection (3), the service operator must carry out an assessment of whether the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in the relevant part of the closures guidance; and that assessment must be carried out in accordance with that guidance.'' 
The Minister may say that there is an enormous amount of detail to be included in the guidance, but the fundamental issue, namely the criteria for closure, must be as plain as a pikestaff to the Government. I fear that the public will draw an adverse inference about the Government's trustworthiness if the criteria are not set out clearly for members of the Committee. 
On page 20 of the explanatory notes, it states: 
 ''The content of the guidance is not on the face of the Bill,'' 
as anybody who looked at the Bill would know, 
''but it is likely to include criteria that cover economic, financial, environmental and social factors based on those used by the Department for Transport for appraisals in other transport modes.'' 
If the Minister or the Government can put that in the notes, why can we not have an expansion of those principles before the Committee, so that we know exactly what we are debating? If the criteria are going to be similar to other appraisals, why keep them a  secret? On what basis can the Government use the notes, which do not carry any weight in law, as a substitute for the contents of draft guidance? 
I hope that the Minister can come clean about those issues, and I hope also that he can give a specific answer to the question implicit in the contributions already made to the debate—namely, why do the Government need to change the existing criteria? At the moment, the criterion for closure, which was endorsed as recently as 2000 by the Government, is passenger hardship. Why is that to be changed or expanded? How can any change be consistent with anything other than a desire on the part of the Government to close down a lot of railway lines, which they would not be able to close down under the existing criteria? 
Will the Minister explain why public sector funders need to be able to initiate proposals for closure? Much is made of the fact that passenger transport executives cannot propose closures, so why should they need to be able to propose closures in the future? Lots of public organisations and activities are funded by the taxpayer, but that does not mean that the Government or their acolytes should be able to propose the closure of those enterprises willy-nilly. 
The point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) is important, because many people have great difficulty obtaining information about the costs of some of the branch lines threatened with closure. In the vicinity of my constituency, if one were to look at the Lymington town branch line, which goes from Brockenhurst, one might be desirous of knowing how much it costs to maintain that line, its stations and so on. At the moment, it is difficult to obtain such information because it is said that it is commercially confidential. It has also been rumoured that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would not apply to Network Rail because it is a supposedly private sector organisation, although everyone knows that that is a sham. Will the Minister explain whether information such as the existing costs and the basis on which those costs have been calculated will be made available to all interested parties, not just at the stage of consultation when it is probably too late to do much about it—as with most consultation exercises, this one will probably be a sham—but now? That would enable people planning ahead to know whether their branch line is in danger of being closed down by the Government. 
What criteria will be used to determine whether a line comes into the excluded category? We will discuss that in detail in a subsequent clause. It is clear that the Government can decree that a particular line be in the excluded category. If a line falls into that category, the right to be involved in the consultation process is more restricted and that process is shorter. Some of the lines under threat at the moment will be deemed by the Government to be in the excluded category. What criteria will be used to decide whether those lines are in the excluded category? What is to stop the Government spelling out all the lines that it regards as excluded under the terms of the Bill? If they did that,  those affected by those lines would be put on notice that their line was likely to be in the first category for closure. 
So, there are some important issues that the Government must address. In principle, if we are talking about changing the criteria that appear in the statute book—namely the criterion of passenger hardship in determining whether a line should be closed—the new criteria should be in the Bill and subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that, if the Minister waffles through in trying to answer some of my other questions, he will not waffle through this one but will come clean on when the guidance will be issued, what the criteria are and why we have not been told about them until now.

John Pugh: Since the Minister will talk about the principles of the closure programme in his response to those who have spoken, I want to make a few general comments.
The 20 pages devoted to rail closures make up about half the text of the Bill, if the schedules are not included. There is almost a case for renaming the Bill the rail closures and miscellaneous provisions Bill, because that is the way in which it can be represented, although we do not use the word ''closure'' in the title, but refer to network modification. It is significant that the only modification that is talked about to any extent is closure. 
Like many others, we have real problems understanding what problems the Government are endeavouring to address through the sequence of closures. Where is the difficulty? Has it been such hard work to close railway lines down? I suggest that until that problem is identified it is difficult to justify those clauses—unless there is a hidden agenda. Some responsibilities have changed and there needs to be an adjustment, but whether that justifies half the text and the main part of the Bill being used in that way I do not know. 
I can imagine people going back to bodies such as the passenger transport executives having read the Bill and saying, ''There is bad news and good news. The bad news is that the PTA will lose some of its franchise rights. The good news is you get the chance to close a few lines.'' That is about as far as the matter goes. It is contrary to the signals that the Government are putting out about community rail partnerships. 
I want to make a couple of specific points about the general run of the subsequent clauses. There are two categories of closure, if I can put it like that: franchised closures and non-franchised closures. In turn, there are two categories of people who seem to be able to engage in the closures and for whom rules are laid down: funders and operators. The procedures differ for funders and operators. If we look at the procedures for funders, we see that an unmistakable leniency is creeping in. The funding authority does not appear to require the permission or the imprimatur of the national body. It has to notify the national body, but  as I understand it—I stand ready to be corrected—it would be slightly easier for a funder to proceed with a closure than for an operator to do so. In the past, a funder had to have an assessment done by the regional passenger committee. That assessment no longer seems to be in place. 
The irresistible conclusion is that there is now an easier way through the whole closure process, but that it will be for other people, and not the Government, to make the hard decisions. In both sets of procedures, the Office of Rail Regulation plays a significant part. My understanding from my reading of the Bill so far is that a more or less identical role is played in respect of the funders' proposals and the operators' proposals. I would like the Minister to confirm that principle.

Win Griffiths: Before I call the Minister, I should say that I am happy for the debate on clause 22 to be a little more wide ranging, given the request made by the Committee, but on the assumption that there will not be a series of clause stand part debates as we go through the subsequent clauses. We will see how things go.

Tony McNulty: It is again a pleasure to serve under your tutelage and chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. I am grateful, too, for your indulgence in allowing the Committee to roam slightly wider than the substance of clause 22 when discussing all the matters that are before us in part 4.
Let us start from the beginning. Why have we bothered to include in the Bill 22 clauses that refer to network modification? As an aside, in relation to the claim made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I point out that it is a rather strange secret agenda that features in 22 clauses of a Bill that is 59 clauses long. That is some secret. 
The current process for closure has at its core on the one hand the SRA—the more astute members of the Committee may have noticed that this will go if the Bill is successful—and on the other hand regional passenger committees, which the astute members of the Committee will have understood go as well. Although amendment No. 5, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats but has not been selected, says simply 
''leave out Clauses 22 to 44'', 
which might make it sound as if they are consumerist champions, it would actually have completely the reverse effect. It would secure for the Government—or certainly the rail industry—almost a carte blanche to do what they liked about network modification and closures. 
Eradicating two key institutional elements of the current closure process—the SRA and the RPCs of old—and putting nothing in their place, which would be the import of deleting the entire part, would not do any favours for anybody other than those who seek to imitate the Conservative Dr. Beeching, which we certainly do not seek to do. If the RPCs of old and the SRA are going, it is important for closures and network modifications that something is put in their place. That is the first reason why part 4 is before us. 
As anyone who has gone back to the Railways Act 1993 and earlier will know, the current legislation governing the existing process in terms of guidance is extremely complex, so we are faced with two choices. We could take account of all the other aspects of the Bill and the White Paper, seek to ride with that complexity and make changes to reflect all the other elements. However, I suspect—I am neither a parliamentary draftsman, which I am pleased about, nor a lawyer—that we would probably return with more clauses than are currently in the Bill. It is appropriate to try to put some clarity into the operation and, however cumbersome the 22 clauses may be, to try to move on afresh in legislative terms to reflect both the overall Bill and the need and desire for a network modification procedure in the wake of the RPCs and the SRA. Broadly and by way of introduction, those are the reasons behind part 4.

John Pugh: I understand the Minister's argument that changes in the initial part of the Bill require sequential modification and that if the clauses were not included it would be almost impossible to close any service, which might be a good thing.

Tony McNulty: No, quite the opposite.

John Pugh: None the less, what the Minister said would be plausible if network modification were defined in some other way than as closure. I hope that he will go on to explain why network modification is spoken about only in terms of closure.

Tony McNulty: I shall; indeed, that was probably going to be my next point. There is no existing procedure for consultation on enhancement or new capacity on the rail network and, if the matter is thought through, why should there be? Such an approach may sound logical initially, but it clearly is not. Why should there be a special process for looking at enhancement, increased capacity and other elements of the rail network? Those are rightly covered by a range of other processes, including planning processes and a range of documents and so on from the national authority—in this case, central Government—backed up to some extent by regional transport strategies.

Christopher Chope: If the Minister is correct in saying that if one wished to develop a new station one would need planning permission, a planning inquiry with an independent inspector would be required, so why is there no procedure for a public inquiry with an independent inspector with regard to closing a station?

Tony McNulty: That is a blue herring. Just because, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) knows, given that we spent such an interesting time in this Room discussing the planning and compulsory purchase option, there are planning processes in respect of building, refurbishing and modifying developments, it does not follow that there should be equal processes for closure. We are saying clearly, and it is not the subject of dispute, that if we get rid of the SRA and the RPCs, it leaves in tatters the existing system. Everyone accepts that the system needs to be replaced. I could make a cheap point and say, ''Except the Liberals,'' because they tabled an amendment saying that they did not want clauses 22 to 44, so they do not want another closure process, but I am a generous man, so I will not make such a cheap point.

John Thurso: I would never for a moment think that the Minister was capable of making any cheap point, but he might be guilty of presenting us with an actual red herring this time. Schedule 1 makes the arrangements for the transfer of powers to the relative bodies. Simply deleting the closure clauses therefore means that schedule 1 takes effect and those powers go to their recipient, as set out in that schedule.

Tony McNulty: That would be a useful, fundamental and telling point if it were not for the inconvenient existence of schedule 13. Due to part 4 and schedule 7, schedule 13 gets rid of and repeals much of the closure process already in place and the powers that lie therein for the SRA and the RPCs.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for responding positively on this particular point. Would he give an undertaking that he will let members of the Committee know his conclusion in good time to allow an amendment to be tabled on Report if he decides not to do anything? I think that he has accepted the point that disabled people need to be kept informed and to be kept in this particular loop.

Tony McNulty: Inasmuch as I can, of course I give such an undertaking. I do too, as the guidance is fairly central to all this, on the entirely fair, wider point. There was, by the by, at least a page of a guide to the guidance in the very earliest documentation that I gave the Committee, although it by no means covers all the criteria.
The plan is to make sure that consultation takes place on that guidance before commencement in the summer. It should not be beyond the wit of officials to get to a stage, at the very least, where people can have sight of that, hopefully before Report, but certainly during our parliamentary process. I will do all that I can to hasten that process, so that people can see the guidance in a bit more detail than the simple one page that was part of the document that I gave to the Committee in the first instance.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my concerns, but he is still a bit vague. We are told that the Report stage is planned for a fortnight today. Having that in mind, would it be possible to produce the draft guidance or draft criteria before then, and if not, why not?

Greg Knight: Two days before.

Christopher Chope: Two days before, so that we could suggest amendments.

Tony McNulty: I have said as much as I can. With the best will in the world, we cannot amend guidance. We cannot amend guidance on Report on the Floor of the House or anywhere else, and the hon. Gentleman has been around this place long enough, albeit on and off, to understand that. However, there will be significant consultation. I understand that that will guide or impact on Members' contributions to any debate that we have on Report. As I said, and rather as I promised  on Tuesday on the PTEs guidance, we will try to see if we can at the very least have a sort of high-level framework of what that guidance might look like.
The other assurance that I can give is that there will be substantive consultation on that guidance, with all those involved or likely to be involved. If I can in any way, shape or form get at least a first draft of what that guidance might look like to the Committee in sufficient time to do something with it before Report—I take the hon. Gentleman's point—I shall. None the less, I shall try and make sure that that is available in some form in sufficient time for there still to be a chance, if not for our Chamber, then for another Chamber, to look at and take note of what is in there. I can say no more than that. 
This is not about a secret agenda. It is not about closures. It is not about me or any successor of mine being the new manifestation of the Conservative Dr. Beeching. It is about putting in place as robust a process for network modification as we possibly can, not least because of the demise of the SRA and the old RPCs. I cheerfully apologise for taking 22 clauses to do that, but we start from an extremely complex body of legislation. We sought, at least in part, to detract from rather than add to that complexity by bringing things forward in the way that we have done. 
Let me touch on some of the points of substance that were made by colleagues. I take the point of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that the problem with Beeching was the attempt to make cost savings by using an average approach. I have examined the detail of what Beeching did, and it was quite phenomenal. If one looks at a pre-Beeching and post-Beeching map of the rail network, there was a hugely significant change. It got rid of about a third of railway mileage in the entire country. All the huge gaps that can now be seen in the network date back to that stage. I have not worked out the exact details, but it is fair to say that since 1963—the best part of a 40-year period—there has been nothing like the number of closures carried out by Beeching. Those closures were hugely significant. 
I am not about to become Dr. Beeching 2, but such matters must be considered in detail. The new procedures will require a detailed assessment of the effects of closures on passengers, operating costs and revenues, which will be spelt out firmly in the guidance. Combined with the process that we put in place, that will mean that the stroke-of-a-pen approach based on the dodgy numbers utilised by Beeching cannot be repeated. If I were being less than generous, I would say that it could be repeated should the amendment to get rid of clauses 22 to 44 be accepted. Then we might be in a world where a Minister with responsibility for transport could eradicate almost a third of our railway lines at the stroke of a pen. The point about the average approach and the numbers used by Beeching is a fair one; that will not be replicated in the process. 
It has been a while since it has been mentioned, so I shall talk in passing about the concept of undue specificity. It is far more appropriate that the broader criteria we want to introduce in the process are not in the Bill because of undue specificity. We want to  introduce more criteria than simply passenger hardship, which, however defined, is a fairly narrow criterion. Passenger hardship will not necessarily sit well with cost benefits, economic benefits and the social and economic substantiation for the existence of a line, not to mention the fair points about freight made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. 
However intellectually rigorous parliamentary counsel are, and however erudite they are in their intellectual acrobatics, people should eschew the notion of definitive, universal listings in a Bill, because that is exactly what they are, and beyond such listings one cannot go, so the flexibility necessary to take on board all the elements—each application—on their own terms and in their own circumstances is lost if ultra-rigid criteria are included in the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister accept that the clear implication of what he has said is that the proposals in the Bill will therefore create passenger hardship, which would not be created if these criteria were not amended?

Tony McNulty: In a word, no. I would not accept that at all. I have said clearly that, however defined, passenger hardship in itself is a narrow criterion. If we want as fair and elaborate a series of criteria in guidance as possible, which go beyond a narrow definition in the Bill, that would be too exact. We want a far more efficient and fair procedure than one based on narrow criteria, however defined. It does not follow that I am saying that passenger hardship does not matter—far from it—but there is a whole range of criteria beyond that that needs to be substantially considered.
I do not think that a set of procedures that includes a 12-week consultation period and a detailed assessment of all the effects could be described in any way, shape or form as speeding up closures. It is about putting in place a process of network modification that is as fair as it possibly can be to all concerned, especially the notion that we will consult widely on the guidance. 
The points of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire on freight are entirely fair, but part 4 applies to the closing of passenger services only, not freight services. If the line is already used for freight, that will be picked up in the assessment carried out under the closure guidance and the line will remain open. That is also why the focus is on services on the lines rather than the lines themselves. As I understand it, and unless someone tells me otherwise, that is what will prevail. 
I get the odd notion or two—not terribly many—about what to do with lines that no longer have services on them. Proposals have been made in some instances, although I cannot remember the exact cases. As the right hon. Gentleman infers, it is clear that there may be another role for the line at some time down the road—if that is not mixing modes too readily—so the SRA may come to us and say, ''This is what may happen in the future, so just mothball it. Put it to one side, but leave the line open.'' In other cases, there may no longer be services on a line but it acts as a useful  fallback or contingency exit route in cases of disruption further down the line, so it is useful as a dispersal point and worthy of being kept open. The system whereby each case is judged on its own merits will prevail, and if, after all the processes are implemented, there are lines that have no stations because they have all been closed, and no services—franchise or other—because they have all been withdrawn, the decisions about whether the rail bed is dug up and so on will still come back to us as the strategic keeper of the flame for the national network. 
I am engaging in a little exercise—actually, it is not little, so I should not say that it is. By any definition, there were extensive changes in 1963. Having looked at the pre-Beeching map, I think that it would be an interesting exercise generally but also as a matter of public policy to find out what has happened to all the lines. Rail beds up and down the country have not had anything done to them. The rails may have been taken up, but the rail beds are still there. In other cases, they have been built on and developed. It would be interesting simply to determine how many of the lines shut by Beeching have at least the potential to be restored in some shape or other. By the way, that is not a public expenditure commitment. There are some interesting curves, loops and other elements that perhaps could be brought back if they have not been used for anything else. It would be a rather useful—but probably academic—exercise to see what could prevail. 
In essence, part 4 does not cover actual line closures. That process remains with Ministers.

Greg Knight: The Minister raised the subject—it is not technically in the Bill—of doing an audit on disused lines to determine how many of them remain largely intact and what the scope is for bringing some of them into use, perhaps not as railways but by realising the asset in some other way. Surely, that is something that the Government ought to be undertaking.

Tony McNulty: Seeing as I told officials about three months ago to do that, I hope that they are. I was simply saying that the exercise is more advanced in some areas than in others. The right hon. Gentleman is right, however, in that it does not necessarily follow that the routes should all be restored as rail lines; there may be secluded and segregated transport routes and channels that can be used by guided buses or some other device. It is at least worth considering that possibility, and I assure hon. Members that that is being done.
Following the demise of the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail passengers councils, something needs to be put in place. We think that the approach that we have adopted is the best way forward and that the procedures outlined in schedule 1 and covered in clauses 22 to 44 are the right way forward. As I said, I will try to get to a stage at which we can consider in greater detail the guidance that will be issued at the earliest possible stage.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to so many of the points that have been made. One point that he has not yet dealt with is costs, which I have already raised, along with the Liberal Democrat spokesman. What will he do to ensure transparency in respect of costs and that that information is available to the general public not just when a closure proposal is made but from now on? What about the suggestion that Network Rail can argue that it is not obliged to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000? How can we get access to the true running costs of some of the lines?

Tony McNulty: I was trying to be generous and was therefore trying not to be unduly provoked. Whatever the hon. Gentleman feels about there being a sham, Network Rail is not a public sector body, but a private sector body. I will not reopen the debate on the demise of Railtrack and the creation of Network Rail, but I point out that it is a private sector body and therefore does not come under the freedom of information regime. As he knows, that regime is principally for public sector bodies.
We will do all we can on the performance end to ensure that more and more information is put into the public domain in respect of matters for which we are ultimately responsible, but I do not think—this is not a matter for us anyway—that a breakdown or cost analysis of every element of every line and service on the network would be terribly useful. When a closure is proposed, however, those cost elements must be part of the process. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that. 
In some senses, the impact of cost will be fairly difficult to determine other than in the most discrete of circumstances, where there is a clear branch line and a clear element of cost involved. Let us imagine closing a station or stopping a service at some stations on a line rather than others. Unpicking such a situation will be difficult, but as was spelled out in the guidance, the cost elements will be part of the criteria and assessment of the application and proposal in question. So the point about cost is fair in the context of a proposal for closures. Cost figures will be available and included in the assessment that forms part of the process. 
As part of that process, not the wider process, the Bill will enable us to require information from all licence holders involved in any application for  network modification at that stage, including Network Rail. We can therefore exact those costs, and they will be properly assessed in terms of any application.

John Thurso: I understand from meetings that I have had with Network Rail that the problem is that it does not know those costs. Its predecessor bodies did not have management accounts that detailed those costs, so it is trying to produce a set of costs ensuring that such figures can be made available. Given that the Minister is and will be in a position to require such information, can he tell us whether, once Network Rail has managed to get the information, he will request it and it will become available?

Tony McNulty: As I said, as one licence holder among others under this part of the Bill we will be able to require those costs. The hon. Gentleman is right that over the past couple of years much of what Network Rail has sought to do as part of the overall process of reducing costs is, first, to recognise far more rigorously than any of its predecessor bodies what its asset base is in terms of what it owns, and secondly to determine the costs associated with maintaining and running that asset base and all the other elements that go with that in terms of routine maintenance, enhancements, new signalling work and other changes.
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, Network Rail is certainly moving in the direction of developing a far more rigorous assessment of the costs, risks and other bases of what it does. By the time there are applications under the new process that has cost and assessment of cost as one of its key elements, I am confident that Network Rail will be in a better position to improve and work up all its information. To some extent, the information is there already, but it is a matter of disaggregating and understanding with a greater degree of confidence quite what is there. 
Broadly, that is my introduction to the clauses in part 4. Clause 22 sets out the circumstances and procedures that apply when a service operator proposes to close all non-franchise services on a line or from a station. That is partly why the focus is on services, rather than simply on infrastructure, given that there will be more than one service—more than one carrier—on a particular line. The clause sets out provisions for circumstances in which there are proposals to close the non-franchise services on a line or from a station. 
As hon. Members will know, clauses 22 to 25 relate directly to that matter, clauses 26 to 28 concern passenger networks and clauses 29 to 31 concern stations. It is important that hon. Members understand that the ORR has a role to play in this area, as a regulator, after this Bill, with a brief that is far wider than narrow economics. 
I commend clause 22 to the Committee. Hon. Members will know that the Government have tabled some minor amendments—I assure the Committee that they are technical amendments—to some of the later clauses to address aspects that were recognised after our first attempt to deal with the complexity. I commend clause 22 to the Committee, and I hope that, at some stage during the merry month of January, I  shall be commending all the other clauses to the Committee up to clause 44, and subsequently up to clause 59.

Greg Knight: Opposition Members are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to make available the general content of the guidance as soon as possible, and also for agreeing to examine the point that I made about disability. That is a very important issue, and we look forward to hearing from him as soon as possible.
I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but it is only fair that I say that we have seen him today at his best. He has left his leather jacket and boots outside the Committee, and adopted more the persona of that suave actor, Leslie Phillips. 
The Minister has dealt comprehensively with all the points made, but I hesitate before being seduced by his new look and style. What reasons did he give for introducing the 22 clauses? First, they were necessary changes because of the abolition of the SRA. Secondly, he was championing devolution. Thirdly, the existing set-up was complex. On the first two points, I would have thought that changes associated with abolishing a body and taking account of devolution could have been dealt with in one or two clauses. I do not think that anyone on the Opposition Benches, including the Liberal Democrats, would object to changes being made because of having to change the names of organisations in legislation when abolishing a particular body. We all accept that. 
Where unease remains is in respect of the changes that the Minister seeks to make because, to use his words, the current system is complex. Clarity and simplicity are, in effect, what he says that he wishes to bring about. In other words, however, clarity and simplicity could mean making it easier to close down a rail service. Some might argue that that is part of a pattern from this Government, including, for example, the transfer of transport planning powers to local and regional authorities, while funding constraints mean that they have to abandon their preferred options, perhaps including trams or heavy rail, in favour of buses; removal of PTE powers to negotiate long-term franchise contracts with rail operators, perhaps because the Government want them to choose cheaper buses; and the transfer of responsibility for rural rail services to community rail partnerships, but without any appropriate increase in funding, which some cynical people might say is done to ensure that responsibilities for closure will fall at a local level and will not be seen to be taken by the Government. Some uncharitable people may argue that the changes are being made because the Government want to see some lines closed down, but realise that it would be politically impossible for them to be seen to take responsibility. 
The Minister was quite clear that he does not want to be seen as the son of Dr. Beeching, and we believe him, as he was honest and genuine today. However, we must look beyond the lifespan of this Minister. I do not mean that unkindly; I hope that he is in place for a long time to come on his party's Front Bench, but perhaps on the Opposition side, rather than where he currently sits. We are concerned that the argument for simplicity  could be used by another Minister to close down rail lines. That is not part of the Conservative party agenda in 2005 or beyond, so he does not carry me with him in his conclusion. 
The amendments necessary to take heed of devolution and accommodate the abolition of the SRA are relatively simple, and the Minister could reintroduce them on Report. I must urge my colleagues to vote against the clause.

John Thurso: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths, for allowing us the latitude for this debate. It has been a very important one, and I hope that such latitude will enable us not to repeat it later. I also thank the Minister. I shall not be quite so fulsome in my praise as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire; I have a high regard for the Minister and I would not damage his reputation any further with that kind of praise. None the less, I must say that he has gone a long way towards answering the questions that were put to him. He has also given some reassurance by repeating on a number of occasions that there is no secret agenda for closure and saying that the clauses are consequent on the abolition of the SRA and devolution to national bodies, although I am not 100 per cent. convinced in that regard, because I think that it would have been possible to have used a relatively small number of clauses along with schedule 1. He is right to point out to me that if schedule 13 were to stand, that could not be done.
Taking the whole of the Bill, it would have been possible to take the existing powers set out in the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000, and simply to have transferred them. The meat of the amendments is not simply the transfer of power, but the change of power to make closure an easier and smoother process. Although I am considerably reassured by what the Minister said about this Government's intention, I am concerned that the overall impact of those changes is to make closure easier for all those involved, which could bring about a future situation under some other Minister where a closure programme would be easier to defend than it is today. Although I am reassured, I am still extremely nervous about the overall impact of the clauses. 
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Consultations under Part 4

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

Greg Knight: I mentioned en passant my concerns about schedule 7, and the Minister responded fully and said that he would consider the point about ensuring that blind people were included in the consultation process. As the schedule is just about consultation, on the basis of his assurance, I ask my colleagues not to divide the Committee on it.

Christopher Chope: May I ask the Minister about paragraph 2(3) of the schedule? Why is a different period of notice provided for in cases under clauses 25 and 26 from that provided for in the other clauses? Although he dealt with many of the other points in the previous debate, he did not answer the point about excluded services and the criteria that would apply to the definition of an excluded service, and about when we will find out which services the Government regard as excluded. One can see from the schedule that, by deliberate omission, there is a much less satisfactory consultation process in respect of clauses 25 and 26 and any proposals for closure than in respect of any other clauses. I should be grateful if he explained why.

Tony McNulty: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for not pushing the schedule to a Division. This is a matter of the wider consultation process. I do not have to hand the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, but I shall certainly let him know in due course. It is a fair point and apologise for missing it. My notes do not tell me anything, so I will get back to him.
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 23 - Proposal by funding authority to discontinue non-franchised services

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Proposals to discontinue franchised or secured services

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Proposal to discontinue excluded services

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 24, line 25, leave out from 'passenger service' to end of line 26 and insert
'other than one which is— 
(a) a relevant railway passenger service for the purposes of any of sections 22(1), 23(1) and 24(1), or 
(b) an experimental passenger service;'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 109.

Tony McNulty: This and the following two sets of Government amendments are—I know that this will cause the hairs on the back of Opposition necks to bristle—entirely technical. There is no hidden agenda. We simply seek to reflect section 49 of the principal Act, the Railways Act 1993. There were a few omissions when the Secretary of State's powers were transferred en bloc. The amendments fill those legislative lacunae and I commend them to the Committee.

Greg Knight: I accept what the Minister has to say. These appear to be technical amendments and we do not find them offensive.
Amendment agreed to.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 24, line 41, leave out from 'which' to 'the' in line 43 and insert
'no funding is provided by a railway funding authority other than'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 110, 114 and 118.

Tony McNulty: Again, the amendments provide clarity, ensuring that the definitions and interpretations of what we are doing with cross-border services between England and Scotland are consistent throughout the Bill. The existing wording is less than clear, and the amendments improve it.
Amendment agreed to.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 25, line 12, at end insert
'and any other service, or description of services, which immediately before the commencement of this section is treated as a service, or description of services, in relation to which Schedule 5 to that Act is to have effect is to be treated after commencement of this section as designated by an order under this section as a special procedure service, or description of special procedure services.'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 108 and 126.

Tony McNulty: The amendments are in part technical and in part consequential on matters that were overlooked when the Bill was drafted. They deal with the broad relationship between the Bill and the relevant aspects of network modification in the 1993 Act. They tidy up the provision, and get consistency back into the mix between the two. I commend it to the Committee—not, I hope, in a Leslie Phillips-esque way.
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendments made: No. 108, in page 25, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(11) Where any order under paragraph 5A(1)(b)(ii) of Schedule 5 to that Act (application of that Schedule to London services) is in force immediately before the commencement of this section, that order shall have effect after commencement of this section as an order under this section designating any services, or descriptions of service, to which it applies as London services.'. 
No. 109, in page 25, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(12) For the purposes of this section (apart from the reference, in the definition of ''excluded service'' in subsection (7), to ''relevant railway passenger service'') ''railway'' has its wider meaning.'.—[Mr. McNulty] 
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: For the reasons outlined by the Minister, which we accept, the amendments have made this a better-drafted clause. However, for the reasons that I gave when we debated clause 22, it is still unacceptable. I ask my hon. Friends to press it to a Division.

Christopher Chope: I hoped that we could draw the Minister out a little further on the subject of excluded services. Although the issue will be debated specifically when we  come to clause 38, it will be much easier for us to understand whether or not it is reasonable—I would rather go along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire in saying that it is not reasonable—if we were given a bit more insight into the Government's thinking on excluded services.
Under clause 38, the Government could effectively take all rail services outside the scope of part 4, and certainly of clauses 22 to 24. The explanatory notes say that clause 38 replicates a power that already exists under the 1993 Act, and that that power 
''has been used to exempt light rail, metro and discrete parts of the heavy rail network from the closure provisions.'' 
I do not know whether that approach is taken on grounds relating to freight, but it is important for our understanding of the Bill—and, more important, the understanding of those outside who are following our proceedings—that the Minister should explain the linkage between clauses 38 and 25. 
What are the Government's intentions in relation to the use of the powers under clause 38 to exclude services? The services that are excluded under clause 38 will be subject to the provisions of clause 25, and that is what we are being asked to discuss.

Tony McNulty: In essence, provision for the excluded services is as set out in schedules 5 and 37 of the 1993 Act. It would include London Underground and, because of its nature, Merseyrail, which of all the PTE-type facilities is absolutely discrete. It would also include light rail outside London and, for now at any rate, probably travel through the channel tunnel and some of the experimental services, or services that are provided otherwise than as a regular scheduled service.
Paragraph 2(3) of schedule 7 sets out when the broad dates need to be fixed in terms of the relationship between clauses 25 and 26. It is not a device for excluding nearly everything from the closure process; it is almost the opposite position to where the hon. Member for Christchurch started. I hope that with my impression of Leslie Phillips I have managed to persuade the Committee that the closures procedure is appropriate, that it works and that it is more robust than the narrowly defined position now. The real secret agenda is to exclude most of the real services from what is now an improved closure process. 
The proposal refers to those discrete or specific services that are above and beyond the regular rail network or are discrete or experimental enough to warrant exclusion. Under the new position in the Bill, London Underground, light rail outside London and services such as Merseyrail would be contenders for definition as excluded services, as they are now. 
Question put, That clause 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 - Proposals to discontinue excluded london services

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Greg Knight: The schedule contains proposals to discontinue excluded London services and I am worried about the wording on page 112. My concerns are already noted on the amendment paper—two starred amendments stand in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. They have not been selected, although I do not criticise the Chair for that, as they are starred, but they encapsulate our concerns. It would appear that the Mayor is under no duty to act reasonably.
I refer the Minister to paragraph 5. Sub-paragraph (3), referring to the consent of the Mayor to a closure, states: 
 ''At any time after the period for making objections the Mayor of London may make that decision without receiving a report or further report if— 
(a) he has made such enquiries as he thinks fit''. 
However, an unreasonable Mayor might decide that he does not need to make any inquiries. He might be so convinced that he is right that he does not listen to the views or opinions of others and does not trouble himself with inquiring what other people think. We take the view that there should be a duty on the Mayor to act reasonably. The amendment that I would have introduced would have added the words ''that he has made all such inquiries as are reasonable''. Why do the Government not think that a test of reasonableness should be imposed on the Mayor? 
Paragraph 5(4) states: 
 ''The Mayor of London may give his consent subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.'' 
Again, we would have preferred the words ''as he reasonably thinks fit''. What assurance can the Minister give us that the wording is sufficient to prevent a pig-headed, self-opinionated Mayor from proceeding unreasonably?

Tony McNulty: I am tempted to say that we are okay, as the pig-headed, self-opinionated candidate lost, and Steven Norris is unlikely to stand again.
The schedule simply reflects legislation as amended by the 1999 Act, and nothing has occurred to affect closures, or in any sense to challenge the idea that that wording is sufficient. In that context, if amendments had been introduced, I would have asked the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw them. I thought for a moment that we were discussing them, but I hope that that is helpful.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister. I am not entirely certain that I buy what he said, but I would like to reflect on it. On that basis, I shall not seek to divide the Committee.
Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 26 - Proposal by operator to close passenger network

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Thurso: I should like to ask the Minister one question. As he rightly pointed out, schedule 13 lists the sections in the 1993 and 2000 Acts that are being repealed. Actually, it is very simple: all the sections about closure in both those Acts are repealed in their entirety. We do not have to bother with them, as it is entirely what is in the Bill that is relevant.
Clause 26 deals with the proposal by an operator to close a passenger network. In the 1993 Act, section 39, ''Notification of proposals to close operational passenger networks'', is the section that is used to deal with that matter. It includes in subsection (4)(a) a requirement that a notice given by the operator 
''shall be accompanied by a statement of— 
(a) the operator's reasons for the proposal''. 
I have looked in the Bill but cannot find that any statement is required of the operator's reason for a proposal. I may have missed it, but I would be grateful if the Minister could either direct me to where I can find that or explain why the Government no longer require the operator's reasons.

Tony McNulty: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has missed it; I think that the matter will be dealt with in far greater detail in the guidance. Indeed, I am right, because that is what my notes say—speaking before the officials give me a piece of paper sometimes works. As specific clauses deal with issues such as operators, excluded networks and services and proposals for stations, we want to elaborate in far more detail on what is required under each clause in the closure guidance. Returning to section 39 of the principal Bill, I can think of no reason why that issue will not be covered by the guidance.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister explain the difference between an operator and a service operator? Clause 22, which has already been discussed, refers to service operators, whereas this clause refers to operators. That is particularly the case in the rubric headings. Clause 22 is entitled ''Proposal by service operator to discontinue non-franchised services'', whereas this clause is entitled ''Proposal by operator to close passenger network''.
The explanatory notes state that clause 26 
''applies to Network Rail's network.'' 
Does that mean that it applies to Network Rail or to Network Rail franchisees? Would Network Rail franchisees be able to trigger clause 26 provisions without the consent of Network Rail, or would such an application be made on their behalf by Network Rail? Would Network Rail be able to make a proposal under clause 26 without the consent of any franchisees operating over the network? 
If, as seems implicit from the explanatory notes, the effect of clause 26 would be triggered by an application by Network Rail, what guarantee is there that the information provided by Network Rail in support of such an application would be made available in detail to the public at the same time as it was to the Secretary of State so that there could be parity of available information affecting a public service? Network Rail is apparently, technically, a private organisation, but the Minister accepts that it is wholly dependent on and related to the provision of public railway services. Therefore, why can there be no guarantee of such a parity of information rather than, as seems implicit in the clause, it being made publicly available only in the event of the Secretary of State deciding that an application is reasonable and should be carried forward for further consultation?

Tony McNulty: I have been trying to look for the exact reference that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but as I said in our opening deliberations, the Bill provides for all licence holders, including Network Rail, to be forthcoming with information necessary to consider either a service closure or operating closure. If the proposals for a network closure impact on a service closure, they will need to go through both parts of the process.
Clause 26 applies to network operators including Network Rail and does not directly refer to franchise operations, which are dealt with elsewhere, as are non-franchised operators or services on particular lines.  Despite Network Rail being in the private sector, and therefore excluded from the freedom of information provision that covers public sector bodies, there is sufficient in the Bill to demand that all licence holders must give us the full information necessary to make the assessment along the lines of the broader criteria that we are introducing in this Bill than those that currently prevail. 
There will be all the information available from network operators. If a network operator proposes closure of a network and that impinges on services, the service element has to go through in terms of closures as well as the network closures spelled out in clause 26. The hon. Member for Christchurch is right to the extent that clauses 22 and 26 are a key interplay between the two. 
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Proposal by funding authority to close passenger network

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 219

Clause 28Proposal to discontinue operation of secured network

Proposal to discontinue operation of secured network

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister explain more about the definition of a secured network? Who can be involved in helping to decide what networks should be networked, prior to any application to discontinue its operation?

Tony McNulty: A secured network is one that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers have a duty to provide arising from the network modification provisions, such as a consequence of ORR issuing a closure non-ratification notice for a proposal under clause 26. The Bill refers to railway funding authorities as the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, PTEs, Transport for London, the Mayor of London, or any other person designated by the order.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Proposal by operator to close station

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister confirm my reading of the clause? Subsection (1) states:
 ''This section applies where— 
(a) the operator of a station proposes to discontinue the use of a station or of some part of it''.
If a station operator wanted to close part of a station—not because he wished its use to cease permanently, but because rebuilding works were taking place to improve the station and he felt that that part of it needed to be closed in the interim—am I correct in thinking that paragraph (e) would come into play? Would building works be regarded as ''a minor modification'', even if the scope of the building works was fairly substantial in some parts of the station? 
While we are on the question of stations, is the Minister satisfied that there is a sufficient duty on, or incentive for, owners of stations to maximise the revenue that they generate not just from passengers, but perhaps from other members of the public who could be encouraged to shop at the station? If the station has units or rooms that are not in use, will they be properly exploited by the station owners to maximise revenue?

Tony McNulty: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry is yes. Minor modifications are excluded. As I understand it the emphasis of that phrase is on ''modification'' rather than ''minor'' in the sense that the works themselves may be quite substantial but they are modifications to something that will remain once they are completed. Paragraph (e), rather than paragraph (a), would prevail. The issue is about stopping those services—all or in part—rather than anything else.
The right hon. Gentleman's wider point is not necessarily part of the clause or the Bill. I think that I said this on Second Reading. My answer would be probably a profound no, if one can be probably profound. Especially at larger termini—and certainly in some of the provincial, out-of-town and out-of-city services, in urban and semi-urban areas—rail station owners are probably not doing as much as they could to exploit the full development potential in the larger termini, or the full potential for commercial and entrepreneurial or community-focused activities. I am talking about the exploitation of the asset; the station and what is there. I am trying to get to grips with that with the Bill and a range of initiatives with a range of station owners, not least Network Rail in relation to the larger termini. I take the point on board in the context of both mass development potential and activities at large termini in major cities, and smaller, more community-focused and entrepreneurial activities that may prevail at particular stations.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Mr. Griffiths, because although the issue is technically outwith the Bill, it is important that those of us who want to see a successful railway industry use every angle possible to maximise revenue and encourage public interreaction with the railway network. Is the Minister aware that in some areas the problem is that planners sometimes get rather sniffy about development if they feel that members of the public may be making an extra journey to the station because there is a shop there? They consider such development proposals in a hostile way. During the negotiations in which he is clearly engaged, will he  speak to his fellow Minister who is responsible for planning to see if any change in the guidance is necessary to make it easier to facilitate the development of stations?

Tony McNulty: I certainly take that point, but it is not just a question of planning. I was at a small inter-urban station in South Yorkshire that had had £5,000 spent on it. It all looked very nice; there had been a huge enhancement to its park-and-ride facility, which was very useful given its proximity to a urban area, and it had a lovely little cafe and information centre inside, which was permanently staffed. However, through some configuration of the interaction between assorted bureaucracies thus far—part of which the Bill is trying to deal with, although not clause 29 in particular—the gentleman staffing it cannot sell tickets. Because of Network Rail, the train operating company or a mixture of the regulatory framework between the TOC, Network Rail and the council that employ the gentleman concerned, he is not sufficiently trained to sell tickets; or at least, he does not have the right bit of paper.
People can park at the park-and-ride facility to go into Doncaster or one of the other main urban areas in South Yorkshire, and they can have a nice cup of tea or glass of orange from that gentleman. He can undertake to look after their car and treat them nicely, and people are encouraged to stay at such park-and-ride facilities because there is a permanent member of staff present. If, however, they want a ticket to get on the train, he cannot help them. That cannot be right if we want to explore the synergy and development potential of stations to help passengers as well as facilitate things like park-and-ride facilities. That is why we are considering such matters and, happily, that station will not be the subject, potentially or otherwise, of a closure application under clause 29. 
Mr. Chope rose—

Win Griffiths: Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I have given a lot of latitude here. I hope that what he has to say deals specifically with the clause.

Christopher Chope: So do I. The issue of station closures is very important. The Minister has drawn attention, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, to the interaction between station closure, alternative possible uses for a station and whether someone with a bit more entrepreneurial flair would be able to make a go of a station that is not very productive at the moment.
The clause seems to make it almost impossible for a group of people or a rival entrepreneur to save a station. Once the operator has decided, perhaps for his own convenience, to close a station, the time scales are so limited that it would make matters almost impossible for a group of people who might say, ''We would like to take on this station. We think it has been run down deliberately by the operator; we would like to save it and develop it in an imaginative way.''
The time scales for closure are so tight that any alternative owner trying to save that station will be unable to get the necessary permissions to do anything effective. We are talking about people throughout the network having a 12-month timetable so that they can be certain of what trains are running and which services are being provided. 
Clause 29 sets out a system that would enable a station to be closed within a period of three months, thereby giving a minimum opportunity to people who felt that there was a realistic proposal to develop that station for the greater community benefit. 
I ask the Minister to take from this debate consideration of whether it is reasonable to have such a short timescale within which a dramatic, draconian proposal such as to close a station can be determined when we have one-year timetables. We know that if someone was to get possession of a railway—for example, to build a road over it—they have sometimes to give 18 months' notice to the operator. How are we going to preserve the smaller stations on the network if we are giving the operator an incentive to close them down at relatively short notice, as contained in clause 29?

Tony McNulty: I have tried to be Leslie Phillips all morning, but every time lately—certainly in the last couple of minutes—the hon. Member for Christchurch speaks, I twitch and reach for my leather jacket and bovver boots. That is the most fatuous contribution we have had thus far.
The closure of a station is not going to happen while there are services there and trains stopping. Even if there was such a plan, that would not exact much of a response from the authorities. We have heard that this is a draconian process of closing stations within three months, but it is not if services exist, if the network exists and if looking at alternatives prevail. 
With your latitude, for which I am grateful, Mr. Griffiths, we have had a very interesting and productive discussion on the wider issue; how to utilise stations more readily as an asset. We think it appropriate that, when needed, there is a process to discuss proposals for the closure of a station. This is not going to drop out of the sky. No one is going to get a station closure proposal in before potentially shutting a network or stopping a service. 
The discussion the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and I had was about live, vibrant stations and how to make more of them. The hon. Member for Christchurch talks as though these are entrepreneurial units and that the small matter of a train running through and stopping at a station is incidental. We need to save the railway station at all costs. That is why it borders on the fatuous and why I border on reaching for my bovver boots, but I shall resist because everything has gone so swimmingly and in such a respectful fashion thus far. Probably the best thing to  do is to ignore the fatuity of his comments and seek to preserve the gentility of the Committee.

Greg Knight: I wish to place on record that whatever the Minister does to encourage the development and greater use of stations—in terms of his comments that are technically outwith the Bill—he will have our support. On this narrow clause, for reasons mentioned regarding clause 22, we must vote against.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Proposal by funding authority to close station

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Proposal to discontinue operation of secure station

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - References to the ORR

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I wonder whether the clause is an Achilles heel in the system. Those of us who are sceptical about the Government's intentions are worried that there is no independent scrutiny of the closure proposals. The clause provides that if the body intending to make the closure is satisfied that the proposal meets the criteria in the guidance provided by the Secretary of State, it goes to the Office of Rail Regulation, which then decides whether the consultation process was flawed or the proposal does not meet the criteria. How can we be assured that the Office of Rail Regulation will be able to take account of representations? Will a quasi-judicial process be involved when it considers whether the consultation process was flawed and/or the proposal meets the criteria and will it hold a public hearing or inquiry to ensure that those who believe that the proposal does not meet the criteria can make their points? How will all that be determined?
We have seen examples in the past of collusion between Ministers and regulators and on issues such as the closure of railway lines and stations we must be assured that there is no scope for collusion or pressure from Ministers. I am sure that the Minister will think that I am deliberately winding him up because it is difficult for him to maintain his genial role throughout a sitting, although he has done very well this morning.

George Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although no one would ever accuse him of being genial. If he makes allegations of previous collusion between Ministers and regulators, perhaps he should be more specific.

Christopher Chope: I am hesitant about drawing up a list of past cases of this Government putting undue pressure  on regulators because I am not sure that that would be in order, Mr. Griffiths, in a debate on the Bill. However, I stand by what I said and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that there is no scope for collusion between the Office of Rail Regulation and Ministers.
In part reply to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), the amazing statements that the Minister made earlier about the immediate past holder of the Office of the Rail  Regulator when he made it clear that he considered that gentleman with contempt because he had not done the Government's bidding is an indication of what has happened. 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.